Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

while everyone wants the codex's to be perfectly balanced this will never happen there will just be as balanced as can be and wtf this is too crap. the latter can be buffed a little but im saying that the changing nature of the top army kinda reflects normal war in the way that over time top and strongest armies will change due to the changing nature of war so you can call that why the changes occur never expect your faction if its at the top to stay at the top as it will change just have a little moan if its far to bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also perfect imbalance add in game differences as every battle will be different and although you might have played an identical army before they could do something different and all factions are different so there isn't one army beats all. I just think if you make things to similar you lose your individuality and 40k is no longer exiting and is basically the difference between ww1 armies the colour of their clothes (yes I know somethings were better on both sides just not enough to be ridiculously noticeable.

Could you restate this in a less incoherent form so that we might have any idea what you're trying to say?

ok imbalance is ok so long as it isn't extreme and it adds texture and variety to the game so don't constantly moan that your unit isn't as good as wat ever

I always thought that the problem with w40k balance is not one of perfection or rather lack of it, but the huge gap between the good armies GW makes and the ones that are bad.

Right now it feels as if mr Bolt was running against a under 16 field and track team, sometimes. It ain't fun to watch and even more unfun to live through a match like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deotrims 16th wrote:
ok imbalance is ok so long as it isn't extreme and it adds texture and variety to the game so don't constantly moan that your unit isn't as good as wat ever

But the GW balancing is exactly the thing you call it, extrem.

im not saying you can't moan about extreme things but if something should be 1 point cheaper nobody should care unless playing 10,000 pts but hten nothings fair anyway

Balance is about a unit's relation to everything else. What do you get for the points versus what else could you get for the points.

To be boring to keep banging on about it but I think Marines are bad at 13 points. They would be even worse if they were 14 points. Or 20 points.

However they would be better if they were 12 points. Or 11 points. At some point they would become "good". Then eventually - at say 9 points, or 5 points, become obviously overpowered.

This seems to generate some philosophical idea that its impossible to balance - but I don't see why thats the case. Incremental changes towards the middle point will get you close enough.

I mean if GW went "screw it, make Marines 5 points, make Guardsmen 8 points, lol lol everything changes!" then sure you are never going to get a balanced game. There is however no logical reason why GW have to do that.

Except we are now probably about 11 months away from the next time there will be points changes (baring some codex updates).

The problem with imbalance isn't the "lack of perfect balance", the problem with imbalance is games that are won during list-building ("I have a TAC mono-Codex Marine army." "I have five Knights." "...I guess you win.") and units that are fundamentally trap options that are never worth including in a list (Assault Marines, Grey Knights).

Nobody wants the game to become bland for the sake of an unachievable mathematical ideal of "balance". Everyone wants to get to a point where you don't have to tell someone/be told "well, you bought the wrong box of models, so I guess you lose."

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with imbalance isn't the "lack of perfect balance", the problem with imbalance is games that are won during list-building ("I have a TAC mono-Codex Marine army." "I have five Knights." "...I guess you win.") and units that are fundamentally trap options that are never worth including in a list (Assault Marines, Grey Knights).

Everyone wants to get to a point where you don't have to tell someone/be told "well, you bought the wrong box of models, so I guess you lose."

And 40k is moving further and further away from that “point”.

Perfect imbalance is crap concept. I wish people would quit posting about it.

Pancakey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with imbalance isn't the "lack of perfect balance", the problem with imbalance is games that are won during list-building ("I have a TAC mono-Codex Marine army." "I have five Knights." "...I guess you win.") and units that are fundamentally trap options that are never worth including in a list (Assault Marines, Grey Knights).

Everyone wants to get to a point where you don't have to tell someone/be told "well, you bought the wrong box of models, so I guess you lose."

And 40k is moving further and further away from that “point”.

Pfft, not really. In order to be moving further and further away, there would have be a consistent point to work with. We may be moving further away from Pluto in the near future, but it is not really a close thing on the planetary scale, and never has been in humanity's history.

Martel732 wrote:Perfect imbalance is crap concept. I wish people would quit posting about it.

It is only a crap concept as a goal, never as a target. Still, this is little different from the other balance topic farther down the page.

 Charistoph wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with imbalance isn't the "lack of perfect balance", the problem with imbalance is games that are won during list-building ("I have a TAC mono-Codex Marine army." "I have five Knights." "...I guess you win.") and units that are fundamentally trap options that are never worth including in a list (Assault Marines, Grey Knights).

Everyone wants to get to a point where you don't have to tell someone/be told "well, you bought the wrong box of models, so I guess you lose."

And 40k is moving further and further away from that “point”.

Pfft, not really. In order to be moving further and further away, there would have be a consistent point to work with. We may be moving further away from Pluto in the near future, but it is not really a close thing on the planetary scale, and never has been in humanity's history.

I would argue that the gutting of core mechanics, reduced impact of terrain/spacing on the battlefield, and putting all the gameplay mechanics in a limited number of unique unit abilities and stratagems hurts the ability for weaker armies to win against stronger armies. The game is getting better in terms of relative balance, due to GW's efforts to tone down the insane power creep, but its just as much of an uphill battle if not more now that there are fewer tools in 8th to take advantage of.

deotrims 16th wrote:
im not saying you can't moan about extreme things but if something should be 1 point cheaper nobody should care unless playing 10,000 pts but hten nothings fair anyway

Why should people settle for low standards when they're paying GW to publish a good game?

GW mostly messed up when it completely blurred the lines between Apoc and regular games. I don't inherently dislike 8th editions rules but some of the core problems from 7th remain.

The biggest being that two things are king, the cheapest chaff I can buy for bonuses and then a few very hard hitting units to take advantage of those bonuses. GW just traded formations for Strat and CP generation. Medium Infantry and tanks don't have much of a role in in system that rewards the former.

Vankraken wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with imbalance isn't the "lack of perfect balance", the problem with imbalance is games that are won during list-building ("I have a TAC mono-Codex Marine army." "I have five Knights." "...I guess you win.") and units that are fundamentally trap options that are never worth including in a list (Assault Marines, Grey Knights).

Everyone wants to get to a point where you don't have to tell someone/be told "well, you bought the wrong box of models, so I guess you lose."

And 40k is moving further and further away from that “point”.

Pfft, not really. In order to be moving further and further away, there would have be a consistent point to work with. We may be moving further away from Pluto in the near future, but it is not really a close thing on the planetary scale, and never has been in humanity's history.

I would argue that the gutting of core mechanics, reduced impact of terrain/spacing on the battlefield, and putting all the gameplay mechanics in a limited number of unique unit abilities and stratagems hurts the ability for weaker armies to win against stronger armies. The game is getting better in terms of relative balance, due to GW's efforts to tone down the insane power creep, but its just as much of an uphill battle if not more now that there are fewer tools in 8th to take advantage of.

I was merely noting that what efforts for balancing 40K were minimal when compared to the massive gulfs that GW inherently puts in to the game system. Comparitavely it would be like all the FIFA teams as well as all the college and high school soccer/football teams were consistently put in the same tournament schedules, and then pointing out that they changed the dimensions of the field by 10 meters a side.

Peregrine wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
im not saying you can't moan about extreme things but if something should be 1 point cheaper nobody should care unless playing 10,000 pts but hten nothings fair anyway

Why should people settle for low standards when they're paying GW to publish a good game?

Only the new players do that. Everyone else should be well wise to that gig by now.

deotrims 16th wrote:
wtf this is too crap

I found the main message.

In general I have to point out that GW is asking quite a lot of money from us so it provides the rules.
Big Rulebook 45 € (core rules aren't free, the detachments are not included in the free rules handout from GW)
Codex 32.50 €
CA18 25 €
That's already over 100 €. Any player playing multiple armies will have to pay more.

Also some of the differences between unit's point cost and actual weapons and statlines are just hugely disproportionate, I calculated in another thread that Knight Castellan pays around 7 points per Wound, while Land Raider pays 12.5 points per Wound and Castellan has far better general rules and stratagems than Land Raider. Also for Castellan being a LoW is hardly a tax when Knights are given for some FETHING reason +3 CPs when they play Super Heavy Detachment. Favoritism is insanely blatant with GW.

deotrims 16th wrote:
im not saying you can't moan about extreme things but if something should be 1 point cheaper nobody should care unless playing 10,000 pts but hten nothings fair anyway

If your opponent takes something like 90-100boys, then a 1pts difference up or down is a huge one.

You don't need imbalance to have each match turn out different if you don't change your list.

That automatically happens if what you do after deployment matters.


People like to compare a perfectly balanced version of 40k with chess. That's not a good comparison because it would indeed be boring if all armies were the same, but the essence of chess is playing smarter than your opponent, something that barely matters in current 40k.

Games-Workshop's rules are generally decent, but they are rarely very good, and almost never outstanding, and herein lies the problem.

Games-Workshop appears to prefer a casual approach to Warhammer in general: casual games where players just want to have a few hours of fun backed up by a suitably fun narrative; casual rules where contradictions are solved by level headed players who let fun decide the outcome; casual lists where players choose their armies based on what looks cool, or what fits a cool theme.

As a narrative gamer, all of these philosophies suit my purposes perfectly well. I'm sure that many of you feel the same as me and many of you don't.

Unfortunately, the prices that Games-Workshop charge for these casual rules are fundamentally not casual.

The problem as I see it is that charging a premium cost for what are essentially casual rules is going to result in a lot of (justifiable) consternation from players who pay a premium cost and expect a premium product.

As long as Games-Workshop are willing to continue to charge such high prices for something that is not representative of that cost, hearing some complaints is to be expected.

digital copies should be half the cost

Printed copies should include digital access

the Points part of CA & FAQ errata etc. should be free and should update the core digital publication. (yes even .pdf copies)

this is something I would pay for

 Ginjitzu wrote:
Games-Workshop's rules are generally decent, but they are rarely very good, and almost never outstanding, and herein lies the problem.

Games-Workshop appears to prefer a casual approach to Warhammer in general: casual games where players just want to have a few hours of fun backed up by a suitably fun narrative; casual rules where contradictions are solved by level headed players who let fun decide the outcome; casual lists where players choose their armies based on what looks cool, or what fits a cool theme.

As a narrative gamer, all of these philosophies suit my purposes perfectly well. I'm sure that many of you feel the same as me and many of you don't.

Unfortunately, the prices that Games-Workshop charge for these casual rules are fundamentally not casual.

The problem as I see it is that charging a premium cost for what are essentially casual rules is going to result in a lot of (justifiable) consternation from players who pay a premium cost and expect a premium product.

As long as Games-Workshop are willing to continue to charge such high prices for something that is not representative of that cost, hearing some complaints is to be expected.

Completely agreed. Current 'justification' of 'Hey, have some beers, figure out fun narrative and enjoy the game' is in really stark contrast to the prices players pay for the rules. Miraculously this works for GW, imagine trying to run a fine restaurant with excellent food in somewhat trashy/nasty space while telling the customers 'Enjoy the alcohol, candle-lit mood lighting and the company of each other while ignoring the immediate surroundings'. I suspect that a lot of the GW-customer dynamics are controlled by sunk cost and loss aversion -like effects, basically people disregard the often sub-par rules because they have dedicated significant amount of time and money on the hobby, which is driven mostly by GW. For example anyone can see comments thrown around constantly that seem to imply many long time competitive players are almost completely content with the high number of 'trap' units and generally spammy meta driven by few FotM overperfoming units. Some even defend the current state of rules (Atleast it's better than 7th!), which is mind boggling to be honest.

Comes to mind

deotrims 16th wrote:
ok imbalance is ok so long as it isn't extreme and it adds texture and variety to the game so don't constantly moan that your unit isn't as good as wat ever

Perfect imbalance is all about being as good as the alternatives, just not the same as the alternatives.

For instance a pair of bloodbowl teams where one is fast and nimble, and the other slow but durable, can be 'perfectly imbalanced' against one another. Both teams contribute equally towards victory but in different ways.

On the other hand a pair of teams where one gets much the same for far fewer points is just plain imbalanced. One team is simply better than the other.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:
digital copies should be half the cost

Printed copies should include digital access

the Points part of CA & FAQ errata etc. should be free and should update the core digital publication. (yes even .pdf copies)

this is something I would pay for

Wise words. I get paying for new stuff, totaly support paying for new rules, new scenarios, even if they are for game styles I do not use myself. But paying for patch notes or a FAQ is stupid. What is the difference between an FAQ in spring telling me something costs X pts and a CA telling me the same thing ?CA is like a seson pass on top of the actual game. all we need now are day one paid DLC, and some general rule that bans the use of rules without models being painted the exact right way, and will be where the gaming industry is right now. Only even the most premium of premium games don't go over 500$ in cost, while w40k games start at 600$ or more.

A.T. wrote:

deotrims 16th wrote:
ok imbalance is ok so long as it isn't extreme and it adds texture and variety to the game so don't constantly moan that your unit isn't as good as wat ever

Perfect imbalance is all about being as good as the alternatives, just not the same as the alternatives.

For instance a pair of bloodbowl teams where one is fast and nimble, and the other slow but durable, can be 'perfectly imbalanced' against one another. Both teams contribute equally towards victory but in different ways.

On the other hand a pair of teams where one gets much the same for far fewer points is just plain imbalanced. One team is simply better than the other.

This. Perfect imbalance is where two sides are balanced against each other overall but in different ways.

An example: Army 1 excels at close combat but is poor at shooting and average at magic. Army 2 excels at shooting but is poor at close combat and average at magic. Army 3 is average at shooting, poor at melee and excels at magic.

In a perfectly imbalanced game, those three armies would all be capable of winning through good play with roughly even odds of success. They are not the same, they do not have access to all of the same units or rules but their strengths all allow them to compete on equal footing with their opponents by playing to their own strengths.

Building a system where you have this level of overall balance through individual imbalance requires an excellent knowledge of your own rule mechanics and how different rules interact and how those rule interactions affect the power of units. In order to balance an army good at shooting against an army good at close combat you need to know exactly the relative strength of shooting vs melee, you need to account for the ability to get into close combat, to withstand casualties from the enemies shooting etc.

GW does not have people writing their rules with that kind of skill. Building a perfectly imbalanced system is also easiest through small balance tweaks which you iterate often. A 6 month wait for fixes, which will fail to fix the newest stuff because it only just came out, is not the way to try and implement perfect imbalance.

Agreed with much said here.
A near perfect balance is like chess or checkers (but someone has to move first!) and you have black/white or black/red for differentiating the play pieces and that is about it.
You have the same number of pieces and their type.

Perfect imbalance is hard to achieve if certain models/units act as an auto-win against another one (cavalry charging disorganized infantry or a side attack on artillery).
Blizzard with Starcraft had been refining that principle with the three factions.

This article is about fairness and the psychology of us gamers and what (evil?) things developers must do to "eventually" balance a game:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/balancing-multiplayer-games-part-3-fairness

You could insert "move" with unit with it being applicable:

"I learned about this Rob Pardo’s lecture on balancing multiplayer games at the Game Developer’s Conference, and I tried it on all the games I balanced, and I think Rob is right. He said that if you have a move that you’re not really sure how to balance, make it too powerful. If you make it too weak, then you run the risk of no one using it at all. Then, when you slightly increase its power, none of the testers will notice or care. They already decided that move is weak. Then if you make it slightly more powerful still, they still won’t care. Even when you inch it up past the reasonable level of power, it’s hard to get it on people’s radar and that makes it really hard to know how to tune the move."

The conclusion is a nice goal I hope GW is trying to do with 8th edition:

"Conclusion
Start your design with some self-balancing forces and fail-safes if you can. Then go wild and create all your game’s diversity, then start the long road of playtesting. As you learn more from playtesting, change your course as you go. Start keeping track of tiers, first by fixing the god tier, then by fixing the garbage tier. Then compress the tiers so that even the bad characters are only slightly worse than the best characters. Finally, fix all the counter-matches you can by actually solving the puzzle, and avoiding cop out solutions."

He is talking more in the realm of Street Fighter type games but moves/units/stratagems/perks are all potential areas for tweaking.
He is 100% correct on huge outcries on "nerfs" and hardly anyone noticing units getting a rules change or points cost reduction unless it is significant.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
This. Perfect imbalance is where two sides are balanced against each other overall but in different ways.

That would be 'asymmetrical balance' not perfect imbalance.

According to that video we already have perfect imbalance

IK/BA/IG is currently the - champion A

Eldar soup si now the scales catching up as people play loads of Champion B that counters it ..

soon (now we have CA18) we'll see champion C ramping up the charts as the counter ... probably Orks

there will always be FOTM ... there will always be the next month and the next flavour..

the problem lies in that there's a few armies that will always be lowest of the tables for the longest time before any adjustments are made ... see GK & marines etc.

Because they just don't have the tools at hand to counter the top meta

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Games-Workshop appears to prefer a casual approach to Warhammer in general: casual games where players just want to have a few hours of fun backed up by a suitably fun narrative; casual rules where contradictions are solved by level headed players who let fun decide the outcome; casual lists where players choose their armies based on what looks cool, or what fits a cool theme.

As a narrative gamer, all of these philosophies suit my purposes perfectly well. I'm sure that many of you feel the same as me and many of you don't.

I sincerely doubt narrative and casual gamers would stop playing with perfectly balanced rules or have less fun with them. There is no downside to them so their opinion actually does not matter one way or the other. If that offends you, tough luck.

 combatcotton wrote:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

Games-Workshop appears to prefer a casual approach to Warhammer in general: casual games where players just want to have a few hours of fun backed up by a suitably fun narrative; casual rules where contradictions are solved by level headed players who let fun decide the outcome; casual lists where players choose their armies based on what looks cool, or what fits a cool theme.

As a narrative gamer, all of these philosophies suit my purposes perfectly well. I'm sure that many of you feel the same as me and many of you don't.

I sincerely doubt narrative and casual gamers would stop playing with perfectly balanced rules or have less fun with them. There is no downside to them so their opinion actually does not matter one way or the other. If that offends you, tough luck.

I agree, with one caveat:

Oftentimes, there is a downside: blandness. Units and factions lose their identities and often sacrifice their narrative elements on the altar of balance, which is a pretty big downside for narrative players.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree, with one caveat:

Oftentimes, there is a downside: blandness. Units and factions lose their identities and often sacrifice their narrative elements on the altar of balance, which is a pretty big downside for narrative players.

Asymmetric balance is a thing. Balanced does not mean factions have to sacrifice their flavor to achieve it. That is a false premise.